Abstract
This paper aims to clarify the affinities in the elements of political legitimacy between John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-1776). Throughout the critical analysis of the links and differences between these two classic British thinkers we approach the analysis of some basic political concepts. It is argued that through the notion of consent developed by Locke, and considering the tension between maintaining political order and the enjoyment of civil liberties in Hume, the political thought of both authors can be articulated. Therefore, it is possible to understand why Locke defends the advantages of a social contract, while Hume represents an opposite view to contractualism. Beyond their large political differences, there are also similarities that lie within the same tradition of thought. Both defend the theory of mixed government and its combination of monarchy and parliamentary regime as the best form of government. Also, the defence of private property is in both cases one of the supports on which their political doctrines are based.
Highlights
[en] Republicanism and Legitimate Government: A Comparative Analysis of the Political Thought of John Locke and David Hume
This paper aims to clarify the affinities in the elements of political legitimacy between John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-1776)
It is argued that through the notion of consent developed by Locke, and considering the tension between maintaining political order and the enjoyment of civil liberties in Hume, the political thought of both authors can be articulated
Summary
La comparación de las perspectivas políticas de John Locke y David Hume que aquí se lleva a cabo tiene un fin doble. Pretende clarificar la filosofía política de cada uno de los autores; por otra parte, tiene como objeto exponer dos modelos del republicanismo británico que sin ser antagónicos reflejan dos visiones netamente distintas acerca de la justificación de la legitimidad del gobierno político. Es cierto que la defensa de la propiedad privada obedece a un denominador común en toda una tradición del pensamiento político británico de la que tanto Locke como Hume son deudores. La noción de consentimiento en ambos autores, según la interpretación sugerida en las páginas siguientes, da pie a pensar que comparten un vocabulario con un significado similar, al menos en lo que respecta al papel y sentido último del consentimiento en la configuración del gobierno político. El quinto apartado presenta recapitula los aspectos defendidos a lo largo de las secciones anteriores a modo de conclusión
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Res Publica. Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
